As you are likely aware, Sir Nicholas Stern was making the rounds this week declaring that we have underestimated the threat. The same Stern who, last January, was observing that on current trajectories... emissions of greenhouse gases from China over the next 25 years will equal the total emissions from the U.S. and Europe over the last century....

The magnitude of that potential increase in atmospheric CO2 is unnerving enough. Now, we have the USA, instead of providing leadership that could encourage China/India/et al. to follow suit, charting a course to actually GROW their emissions to 2025. From a starting point today of ~ 385ppm CO2, these outcomes would be committing the planet to concentrations well in excess of 450ppm within short decades.

Bush's nonsense continues to treat the issue as a "flow" problem, not a "stock" problem. When we say we need to get "emissions" down by 50%, 80%, 90% by 2050 or whatever, THE PATH we take to get there is actually MORE important than the final number. E.g. if we grow our global emissions to 2045 and then, improbably, abruptly cut them by 95% by 2050, it would be too late. We would have accumulated so much that many future generations would pay the price irregardless of whatever draconian cuts they accomplished subsequently (unless they were able to somehow draw down and permanently remove ambient CO2).

Good on the Germans for calling them out on this. Like Kevin Conrad from Papua New Guinea, at Bali last December - "We ask for your leadership, we seek your leadership ... if you can't give us what we want, please get out of the way." - and the US forced to back down on a world stage... It would be "nice" to have the US onboard, but at this point they have lost all credibility on the file (except at 24 Sussex!) and the Copenhagen process is clearly the main driver for agreement, and that bus can pick up Hilary, Obama or John as hitch-hikers early next year. Thank god it's buh-bye Bush, Cheney, Connaughton and crew in roughly 200 days.